Isabel Deller
Dr. King
English 2010-21
December 7, 2017
How do Neural Enhancers Affect the Brain?
A number of writers have recently begun to discuss nootropics, brain enhancement drugs, and all of their effects. Authors have been comparing such neural enhancers to doping and Viagra, trying to determine if they are changing modern civilization, and whether that change has positive, negative, or neutral effects.
At the beginning, when nootropics were being created, there were concerns about whether or not the brain enhancements would be beneficial or if they would prove to be harmful to society. While the discussion of neural enhancers effects has been going on for centuries, there are more arguments continuing to be made on all fronts. ADHD medications were some of the earliest pills to help regulate and strengthen brain activity, but people have their reservations about it. As more advanced and different nootropics are being created, the same remains true; messing with people’s brains is a definite source of conflict. People are divided on whether or not it is harmful, helpful, or has no effects because neural enhancers have been a large source of fear in the affected people’s lives, as has been shown throughout history.
Within the majority of the observed demographic, there is some part of nootropics that people support and there are the things that people adamantly disagree with. Understanding neural enhancers may help some people to feel more secure about the ever increasing use of them. The way nootropics affect human lives has been shown throughout history and the discussion of it allows for further comprehension, allowing people to create a more informed opinion on the subject. It is especially important to understand the consequences that mental enhancements can have on an individual. If it is able to change the way a person thinks or acts, they might want to know why it may have those effects on them.
Several authors believe that the public use of neural enhancing drugs could potentially be beneficial, but they argue that before any definitive answer is released, the effects and symptoms that they cause should be heavily discussed. Authors such as Jayne C Lucke, Stephanie K Bell, Bradley J Partridge, and Wayne D Hall from the University of Queensland and MJ Hyland of the Guardian are just several of the many authors who believe that more proof concerning the safety of neuroenhancers should be attained before their wide release into the masses. In her article, The Drugs Do Work: My Life on Brain Enhancers, MJ Hyland, author of the Health and Well Being section of The Guardian, maintains, “If both efficacy and safety were proven, there would be along line of people with MS asking their GPs for a taste of this brain pill [Modafinil],” (Hyland). In other words, Hyland believes that if the benefits and safety issues were more understood, than it would be more likely that Modafinil would be more available. Hyland is asserting that, no matter anyone’s opinion on these drugs, if they were proven to not be hazardous, then it would be more acceptable and safe for the people who do or who want to take them. In their article, Academic Doping or Viagra for the Brain, Jayne Lucke, Stephanie Bell, Bradley Partridge, and Wayne Hall, University of Queensland’s Clinical Researchers, emphasize, “Neuroenhancing drugs should be assessed on their merits, and regulated according to the risks that they pose and the feasibility of regulating or restricting their use,” (Lucke et al). In making this comment, Lucke advocates that the use of neural enhancers should be examined, then after that happens, whether or not to regulate or limit them should be discussed. In Lucke’s view, “There is so far little evidence that drugs significantly enhance cognitive performance,” (Lucke et al). These four authors agree that neural enhancers should be studied more, but they also believe that what has to be proven is that the drugs have any effect at all. Hyland agrees when she writes, “These drugs don’t turn dullards into super-achievers, and there’s no evidence that any IQ points are gained,” (Hyland). In other words, Hyland believes that what Lucke is saying about the lack of evidence available, is true. Hyland agrees that there needs to be more studies done on the mental aspects of neural enhancing drugs. Lucke provokes the matter further when she writes, “It is misleading to think that neuroenhancement might obviate the need for hard work or study; it is unlikely that drugs will produce a good exam mark if the subject has not studied,” (Lucke et al). Lucke is corroborating the views of Hyland in saying that the use of such drugs will not be the cure to knowing everything. They are saying that the users must have a previous knowledge of topics for the drugs to come up with the information; neural enhancers will not just drop new knowledge into people’s heads. According to Hyland, “The short-term side-effects seemed to include headaches and possible nausea, but the only real long term side-effect reported in medical journals was a vague complaint made by users that they’d become monomaniacal,” (Hyland). Basically, Hyland is observing that there have not been many reported and serious side-effects of neural enhancement drugs, but the constant ones are related to the level of efficiency in the workplace as the subjects tend to spend more time with work related things, typically at the expense of friend and family relationships. Lucke complicates matters further when she writes, “Different substances might need different types of regulation, as might different uses of the same substances,” (Lucke et al). In making this comment, Lucke is stating that side-effects are not the only thing that matters, the different substances require personalized regulations as they affect the brain in different ways.
Several other authors are unsure about the benefits of neuroenhancing drugs. They believe that people in the medical community must carefully evaluate research, while believing that more research needs to be collected to prove that neural enhancers sway positive or negative. They also see that there are many stigmas surrounding nootropics though. In her article, The Brain Bro, Olga Khazan, staff writer at The Atlantic, claims that different nootropics come with different stigmas, none of which are proven, but many are around. She also shares that, “Nootroo maintains that its pills aren’t supplements; instead, they are labeled ‘for neuroscience research only,’” (Khazan). In other words, Khazan believes that one of the stigmas with neuroenhancers is that people use it as a widespread and common supplement. Her sources tell her that that is not, in fact, true; nootropics should not be used nonchalantly. In his article, Bad News for Ivy Leaguers: ADHD Drugs Hurt Your Memory, Alexandra Sifferlin, health writer for Time Magazine, claims, “[Neural enhancers] are a short-term crutch that can actually adversely impact the brain’s plasticity,” (Sifferlin). The essence of Sifferlin’s argument is that neural enhancers are dangerous and harm the brain’s ability to function and rehabilitate itself. She continues by saying that nootropics, “Interfere with people’s ability to plan ahead, switch between tasks and be overall flexible in their behaviors,” (Sifferlin). Sifferlin’s point is to further prove that neuroenhancers are potentially extremely dangerous to the brain’s health and its impact on daily lives. Khazan quotes Romanian scientist and father of nootropics, Cornelie E. Giurgea, who claims, “Man will not wait passively for millions of years before evolution offers him a better brain,” (Khazan). In making this comment, Khazan and Giurgea insist that man will not sit around waiting for their brains to work better, they will take the knowledge that they have now and they will attempt to speed up the process, allowing modern brains to become ‘smarter’ more quickly than before. In her article, Khazan complicates matters further when she writes, “Meta-analysis, conducted by scientists affiliated with a piracetam manufacturer, which suggested that piracetam might be effective after all,” (Khazan). The essence of Khazan’s argument is that there are some Nootropics in this world that are not proven to be completely horrible like everyone thinks that they are. Sifferlin disagrees when she writes, “Even low doses can harm nerve activity in the brain as well as memory and complex learning abilities,” (Sifferlin). Basically, Sifferlin is claiming that, while there may be research that some neural enhancers are not entirely awful, there is still more proof on the side that they harm one’s brain activity and production. According to Kahazan, “It can be a few weeks before the pills reach full potency,” (Khazan). Her point is that, without extreme caution, people who take neural enhancers could be compelled to take more than the safe limit, causing real problems. Sifferlin further proves this by saying, “Unsupervised use can result in an overstimulated nervous system which could actually kill nerve cells,” (Sifferlin). Together these two authors prove that neuroenhancements are a potentially very dangerous tool and that they should be taken very seriously. Sifferlin shows that these drugs could cause irreparable damage to important cells in the brain and body, which proves her claim that neural enhancing drugs are not something to be taken lightly.
While some authors are unsure about the benefits of nootropics, others are more focused on how they relate to other addictive drugs such as caffeine, and nicotine. In her article, Brain Gain, Margaret Talbot, staff writer and author of “The Entertainer,” maintains, “Even with the aid of a neuroenhancer, you still have to write the essay, conceive the screenplay, or finish the grand proposal. If you can take credit for work you’ve done on caffeine or nicotine, then you can take credit for the work produced on Provigil,” (Talbot). Basically, Talbot is asserting that nootropics are not any different than caffeine or nicotine, because they are just another enhancer like many other daily used substances. She is claiming that the use of caffeine or nicotine should not be deemed any better than the use of neuroenhancers because they all affect the way that the brain processes things. In their article, Performance Enhancement at the Cost of Potential Brain Plasticity, Kimberly Urban and Wen-Jun Gao, psychology and neurobiology professors and researchers, maintain that neural enhancers affect the brain’s plasticity, much like other common and popular things. Urban agrees when she writes, “The usefulness of modafinil in improving alertness and wakefulness in non-sleep-deprived, healthy individuals, and its military involvement, has led to consideration of the drug as a cognitive enhancer,” (Urban et al). The essence of Urban’s argument is that nootropics, like caffeine, keep the user awake and productive as they work. Urban and Talbot both defend the fact that nootropics are similar to the drugs that are commonly found. Urban extends the issue when she writes, “In recent years Adderall and Ritalin, another stimulant, have been adopted as cognitive enhancers: drugs that high-functioning, overcommitted people take to become higher-functioning and overcommitted,” (Urban et al). In other words, Urban believes that people are using these drugs to be and feel smarter than ever before. They are manipulating them to their benefit. Talbot develops the argument further when she writes, “Thus, modafinil at certain doses might cause a reduction in NMDA receptor levels, impairments in short-term plasticity and alterations in long-term plasticity as much as MPH does,” (Talbot). In making this comment, Talbot is telling us that these drugs are not as good for the brain as they may seem. Sure, being able to feel relaxed and smarter would be great, but losing some of the long-term plasticity of the brain would be a major drawback in exchange for only a few moments of the good feelings that come with it.
Alongside the commonalities that neural enhancers have with many well-known substances, such as caffeine and nicotine, they also have been believed to benefit and educate the society. In his article, Study Drugs and Neural Enhancers: Science and Controversy, Chukwuma Onyebeke, student writer for Yale Scientific, maintains, “Although many health risks need to be evaluated, the use of cognitive enhancing drugs may not only improve the performance of college students but also increase the cognitive abilities of humanity as a whole,” (Onyebeke). The essence of Onyebeke’s argument is that neural enhancers are powerful pills that should be taken seriously because they can be used to make humanity, as a whole, better and smarter. Along with providing the society a way to be smarter, they need to be researched and regulated to be sure that they are safe to hand out to the people who are trying to better the society. In her article, Do Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs Work?, Susan Watts, BBC reporter, agrees with Onyebeke when she writes, “Some scientists believe they could have a beneficial role to play in society, if properly regulated,” (Watts). In making this comment, Watts is claiming that there are potential benefits of these nootropics in society. Watts goes on to explain, “When asked about their potential impact on society, people clearly have concerns beyond safety – about how the drugs might create a two-tier education system in which some can afford the drugs and others can’t,” (Watts). Watts intent is to show that nootropics can have the ability to cause concern, but the way they change society is positive, whether or not there is the debate about the risks of who can and cannot afford them. Onyebeke complicates matters further when he writes, “Humans should be able to use drugs to improve brain function in the same way that they use food, sleep, and exercise to improve brain function, these scientists and ethicists argue that as long as such drugs are proven to be safe, they should be embraced and not stigmatized,” (Onyebeke). Onyebeke is corroborating the lesser opinion that neuroenhancers should be legal and socially acceptable due to the fact that they are so similar to things that already exist and are fully immersed in most cultures. According to Watts, “Prof Sahakian’s… most recent research showed that sleep-deprived surgeons performed better on modafinil,” (Watts). In other words, Watts is giving evidence that suggests that neural enhancing drugs do work and are incredibly powerful in even the tensest of situations. Onyebeke supports this by observing, “Enhanced signals are thought to be responsible for the increase in cognitive abilities and working memory upon taking these drugs,” (Onyebeke). The essence of this argument is supporting Watts claim that the drugs to, in fact, work. Watts continues, “Even a small 10% improvement in a memory score could lead to a higher A-level-grade or degree class, and that is a big improvement,” (Watts). Watts develops the fact that when neural enhancing drugs cause brain function to increase by even the smallest amount, it is a big deal. In his article, Onyebeke maintains that, “Seven percent of college students have admitted to using some kind of neuroenhancing drug for nonmedical use,” (Onyebeke). Basically, Onyebeke is claiming that many students already know about and use these brain empowering drugs, so the drugs can be better embraced into society like Watts’ interviewee, Professor Sahakian, who “thinks these drugs could play a far wider role in society,” believes they should be (Watts). Onyebeke insists that, “As long as neuroenhancing drugs are safe and legal, [Dr. Kober] contends that people should be allowed to use them,” (Onyebeke). In making this comment, Onyebeke is urging society and medical communities to examine the benefits of neural enhancers before completely deeming them as a bad thing.
As the discussion of whether or not nootropics provide any benefits to the brain’s activity continues, the chance of everyone agreeing unanimously remains unlikely. There are authors who believe that for the widespread use of such drugs to be acceptable, more research and study should go into how they manipulate the brain both in the short- and long-term sense. Other authors remain unsure about whether they believe that the benefits of neural enhancers outweigh the stigmas and potential dangers that come with the power that they may bring. These authors may lean towards one side or another, but they are not comfortable making a choice while there are still so many things to be learned on the topic. Several more authors assert that, because these neural enhancers are so similar to other “drugs,” such as caffeine and nicotine, they should not be outlawed because they believe that. These authors claim that if the main concern with neuroenhancers is that they mess with one’s mind, than other common drugs should be deemed illegal as well. While the opposing side to accepting nootropics is heavily debated, the side that believes that they are beneficial is not as widely represented. There are studies that prove that these drugs work, and while there is not much proof that they are safe yet, some authors believe that they can be a benefit to society anyway.
While this is a widely discussed topic among the medical community, there have been lapses in the conversation where other important factors of neural enhancers may have been discussed. If these drugs become too widespread, then criminals could get ahold of them and use them to ruin the economy and the crime rates could skyrocket because they would have access to information that they did not know that they did not know they knew. There is no telling what exactly could be done while on nootropic drugs so people would still have to be careful with them. Another point in the discussion that could be discussed is whether or not neuroenhancing drugs should be regulated and how that would take place if or when they become widespread. Neural enhancing drugs have the potential to be very strong and powerful things so if they get into the wrong hands, turmoil could run throughout society.
Works Cited
Hyland, MJ. “The Drugs Do Work: My Life on Brain Enhancers.” The Guardian, Guradian News and Media, 3 May 2013, www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/may/03/brain-enhancing-drugs-mj-hyland.
Khazan, Olga. “The Brain Bro.” The Atlantic, The Atlantic Monthly Group, Oct. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/the-brain-bro/497546/.
Lucke, Jayne C et al. “Academic Doping or Viagra for the Brain?” National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Center for Biotechnology Information, 11 Feb. 2011, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059919/.
Onyebeke, Chukwuma. “Study Drugs and Neural Enhancers: Science and Controversy.” Yale Scientific, Yale Scientific, 9 May 2012, www.yalescientific.org/2012/05/study-drugs-and-neural-enhancers-science-and-controversy/.
Sifferlin, Alexandra. “Bad News For Ivy Leaguers: ADHD Drugs Hurt Your Memory.” Time, Time Inc, 13 May 2014, time.com/97448/bad-news-for-ivy-leaguers-adhd-drugs-hurt-your-memory/
Talbot, Margaret. “Brain Gain.” The New Yorker, Conde Nast, 27 Apr. 2009, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/04/27/brain-gain.
Urban, Kimberly R, and Wen-Jun Gao. “Performance Enhancement at the Cost of Brain Plasticity: Neural Ramifications of Nootropic Drugs in the Healthy Developing Brain.” Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, Frontiers Media, 13 May 2014, journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00038/full.
Watts, Susan. “Do Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs Work?” BBC News, BBC, 9 Nov. 2011, www.bbc.com/news/health-15600900.